Troy Haviland v. Lourdes Medical Center of Burlington County, Inc. (085419) (Burlington County & Statewide) (A-70-20; 085419)
The AOM statute does not require submission of an AOM to support a vicarious liability claim against a licensed health care facility based only on the conduct of its non-licensed employee.
In the Matter of Proposed Construction of Compressor Station (086428) (Statewide) (A-44-21; 086428)
Appellants should have included Tennessee as an "interested party" pursuant to Rule 2:5-1(d) when they filed their initial Notice of Appeal and Case Information Statement in the Appellate Division. Accordingly, the Court declines to reach the arguments advanced under Rules 4:33-1 and -2. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Division to permit appellants to file an amended Notice of Appeal and Case Information Statement that names Tennessee as an interested party pursuant to Rule 2:5-1(d).
CHRISTINE ANN DEVERS VS. JEFFREY ERIC DEVERS (FM-07-1537-09, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-4481-19)
After many years of litigation, the parties reached a settlement agreement, reserving for the matrimonial court's consideration a single issue about a bank account; the wife claimed the account was a marital asset and the husband claimed it consisted of investor funds. After a plenary hearing, the judge found the Investment Advisers Act deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction, 15 U.S.C. § 80b-14a. An order was entered denying the wife's claim "without prejudice." Her reconsideration motion filed three months later was denied as untimely.
Soon after the wife appealed, the court entered an order that limited the appeal to a review of the order denying reconsideration. Later, however, the court allowed the parties to brief all issues, including the merits of the order denying the claim on jurisdictional grounds and whether the merits panel was barred from reconsidering the earlier motion order by the law of the case doctrine.
The court held that the order denying the wife's claim to the account "without prejudice" caused sufficient uncertainty about its finality that the interests of justice permitted the court's consideration of the jurisdictional ruling. The court also held that 15 U.S.C. § 80b-14a grants state courts concurrent jurisdiction, so the case was remanded for a disposition of the wife's claim to the account on its merits.
Troy Haviland v. Lourdes Medical Center of Burlington County, Inc. (085419) (Burlington County & Statewide) (A-70-20; 085419)
The AOM statute does not require submission of an AOM to support a vicarious liability claim against a licensed health care facility based only on the conduct of its non-licensed employee.
Hamid Harris v. City of Newark (085028) (Essex County & Statewide) (A-59-20; 085028)
The trial court’s order in this case was a decision premised on factual findings as well as legal conclusions, not an exclusively legal determination. A trial court’s order rejecting as a matter of law a claim of qualified immunity should not be designated as a final order appealable as of right under Rule 2:2-3(a), and federal law does not require the contrary result. In an NJCRA action, a defendant seeking to challenge a trial court’s order denying qualified immunity prior to final judgment must proceed by motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal in accordance with Rules 2:2-4 and 2:5-6.